Abstract
This paper uses union density variations across state and state-industry cells in 1985, 1995, and 2005 to examine the factors that contributed to the decline in private sector unionization in the U.S. In addition to the conventional variables, it develops two measures to gauge the effects of union-management strife. Estimations indicate that union density varied directly with union organizing efforts and inversely with the employer opposition to unionization. Decomposition analysis reveals, however, that these variables do not explain why union density declined because changes in their marginal effects were favorable to unionization. Declining union density instead is attributable mostly to the shift factors subsumed under the intercept term over 1985–1995, and shift factors cum negative changes in sensitivity of unionization to workforce characteristics over 1995–2005.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Hirsch (1980) used a sample of metropolitan areas in 1973–75. Neumann and Rissman (1984) used biennial inter-state data over the 1964–1980 period. Moore and Newman (1988) studied interstate union densities in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, as well as the pooled sample across all 4 years. Ellwood and Fine (1987) used cross-state annual time-series data covering 1951 to 1977. Hogler et al. studied union density of 2000 (2004a) and 2003 (2004b).
In 2005, for instance, of the 24,720 ULP charges 18,304 were against employers, 6,381 cases against unions, and a small number of cases were related to the hot-cargo agreement. Most of the ULP charges (8,911) against employers were due to refusal to bargain. The second largest category of ULP charges against employers (8,047) were alleged illegal discharges or other forms of discrimination against employees. The majority of ULP cases against unions were charges of alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees. Among the cases filed against unions, 5,405 cases were due to illegal restraint and coercion of employees, 594 cases of illegal discrimination against employees, and 493 allegations of illegal secondary boycotts and jurisdiction dispute.
In addition to earnings, we also experimented with the union-nonunion wage gap as an explanatory income-related variable but did not include it in the final analysis. The variable was undefined for the cells in which there were no unionized workers. Its inclusion would have led to substantial loss of observations in the state-industry level regressions (as high as 20 % in 2005).
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming had right RTW laws throughout the period we studied. Three states adopted RTW laws during the period under study: Idaho (1986), Texas (1993), and Oklahoma (2001) (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm).
In order to capture public attitudes and social and political context, Hogler et al. (2004a, b) brought into the picture the concept of social capital or civic activism and social network involvement (that includes factors such as attendance at town or school board meetings, volunteering, and membership in social organizations) and the dominance of liberal and conservative political beliefs. They left whether unionization is a complement or a substitute for social capital as an empirical question. Neumann and Rissman (1984) and Moore and Newman (1988) considered the impact of expansion of publicly provided services that substitute union-provided services but reached mixed results. We omit these factors from the analysis due to the dearth of consistent measurements over the three decade span we study.
We use the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families (http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gshbkocc.pdf) in categorizing blue- and white-collar workers
These files are accessed at http://www.ceprdata.org/cps/org_data.php.
The source is (http://www.ces.census.gov/index.php/bds/bds_database_list)
NLRB reports are available at (http://www.nlrb.gov/annual-reports).
This does not necessarily mean that unionization efforts decreased overall, because starting in the 1990s unions increased their card check activities.
Contributions of individual variables to decompositions are available from authors on request.
References
Benz D (1998) Scaling the wall of employer resistance: the case for card check campaigns. New Labor Forum, 118–128
Blinder AS (1973) Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour 8:436–455
Booth AL (1995) The economics of the trade union. Cambridge University Press
Bronfenbrenner K (1997) The role of union strategies in NLRB certification elections. Ind Labor Relat Rev 50:195–212
Clawson D, Clawson MA (1999) What has happened to the US labor movement? Union Decline and Renewal. Annu Rev Sociol 25:95–119
Eaton A, Kriesky J (2001) Union organizing under neutrality and card check agreements. Ind Labor Relat Rev 55:42–59
Edmiston K (2007) The role of small and large businesses in economic development. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 73–97
Ellwood DT, Fine G (1987) The impact of right-to-work laws on union organizing. J Polit Econ 95:250–274
Farber HS (1990) The decline of unionization in the United States: what can be learned from recent experience? J Labor Econ 8:S75–S105
Farber HS, Bruce W (2000) Round up the usual suspects: the decline of unions in the private sector, 1973–1998. Working paper, No. 437, Industrial Relations Section Princeton University
Fiorito J, Jarley P, Delaney JT (1995) Union effectiveness in organizing: measures and influences. Ind Labor Relat Rev 48:613–635
Freeman RB (1988) Contraction and expansion: the divergence of private sector and public sector unionism in the United States. J Econ Perspect 2:63–88
Freeman RB, Medoff J (1984) What do unions do? Basic Books, New York
Hirsch BT (1980) The determinants of unionization: an analysis of interarea differences. Ind Labor Relat Rev 33:147–161
Hirsch BT, Berger MC (1984) Union membership determination and industry characteristics. South Econ J 50:665–679
Hirsch BT, Macpherson DA (2003) Union membership and coverage database from the current population survey: note. Ind Labor Relat Rev 56:349–354
Hogler R, Shulman S (1999) The law, economics, and politics of right to work: Colorado’s labor peace act and its implications for public policy. Univ Colorado Law Rev 70:871–952
Hogler R, Shulman S, Weiler S (2004a) Right-to-work laws and state business environments: an analysis of state labor policy. J Manag Issues 16:289–304
Hogler R, Shulman S, Weiler S (2004b) Right-to-work legislation, social capital, and variations in state union density. Rev Reg Stud 34:95–111
Ichniowski C, Zax JS (1991) Right-to-work laws, free riders, and unionization in the local public sector. J Labor Econ 9:255–275
Kleiner MM (2001) Intensity of management resistance: understanding the decline of unionization in the private sector. J Labor Res 22:519–540
Moore WJ (1998) The determinants and effects of right-to-work laws: a review of the recent literature. J Labor Res 19:445–469
Moore WJ, Newman RJ (1988) A cross-section analysis of the postwar decline in american trade union membership. J Labor Res 9:111–125
Neumann GR, Rissman ER (1984) Where have all the union members gone? J Labor Econ 2:175–192
Oaxaca RL (1973) Male–female wage differentials in urban labor market. Int Econ Rev 14:693–709
Oaxaca RL, Ransom MR (1999) Identification in detailed wage decompositions. Rev Econ Stat 81:154–157
Riley N-M (1997) Determinants of union membership: a review. Labour 11:265–301
Scruggs L, Lange P (2002) Where have all the members gone? Globalization, institutions, and union density. J Polit 64:126–153
Yates MD (2009) Why Unions Matter, 2nd edn. Monthly Review Press, New York
Yun M-S (2005) A simple solution to the identification problem in detailed wage decompositions. Econ Inq 43:766–772
Acknowledgments
We thank Scott Carson, Korkut Erturk, Richard Fowles, Stephanie Luce, Thomas Maloney, Michael Timberlake and an anonymous reviewer for comments on earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baraghoshi, B., Bilginsoy, C. Interstate Variations in Private Sector Union Density in the U.S.. J Labor Res 34, 180–202 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-012-9156-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-012-9156-7